One of the most often discussed issues in the methodology of print audience research is that of title confusion. The potential threat of title confusion has continued to concern both research producers and research users because the results of print research are often used in a marketplace where potentially confused titles are often direct competitors. Many times these direct competitors feel that they are in worse than a zero-sum competition. Confused readers actually have the potential for producing a â€œdouble negative impactâ€? since these readers act to decrease the audience of one publication and increase, by the same amount, the audience of a competitor. It is interesting to note that in Michael Brownâ€™s landmark work Effective Print Media Measurement, [Brown, 1999] which summarizes much of the relevant wisdom to emerge from the first nine Worldwide Readership Research Symposia, the term â€œtitle confusionâ€? requires three lines in the index for page references while terms like â€œresponse rateâ€? and â€œsource of copyâ€? only require two. Much of our inspiration for the present study has roots in Don McGlatheryâ€™s 1993 paper â€œDoes Title Confusion Affect Magazine Audience Levels?â€? [McGlathery, 1993] Specifically we wanted to create a large scale empirical data set that would allow us to examine many of Donâ€™s hypotheses and conjectures.
Symposium: 2005: Prague, Session 5 - Technical Problems and Solutions
Authors: Frankel, Martin, Galin, Michal, McDonald, Scott
Organisations: Condé Nast Publications, Mediamark Research Inc
Topics: Questionnaire Design